> But I do know that the Internet / media structure today is not a sufficient explanation. Why? Because a) all the candidates exist in the same tech/media environment, and b) the tech/media environment in 2016 is not substantially different from 2012, when the GOP went establishment yet again.
The social media landscape is significantly different than in 2012.
From Jan 2011 to Jan 2014, Facebook saw big increases in users aged 25-55 and massive increases in users aged 55+.
- Who votes the most?
- Where have they increasingly been turning as their primary consumption point for media?
Thompson's idea is that aggregator services have replaced distributor services as the channel for media to get to consumers, and that these aggregator services present new consumer-targeting opportunities for media, and new media-consuming opportunities for consumers.
When consumers define part of their consumption channel by the consumption preferences of other consumers, we start to see constructive interference in the "neutral" flow of media to any one individual consumer. It's that "echo chamber" effect folks like talking about.
Thompson says in the article, "[it's not] that Donald Trump or anyone else is an aggregator." Rather, the nature of the aggregator as a much more malleable media delivery system presents a new effect in that political landscape: any particular piece of media might end up in one of these broad-reaching, customized consumption webs and produce a large effect on those consumers.
Before, the distribution services were shaped by a relative handful of editors. Today, the aggregator services are shaped by the entire population.
The parties can't influence the entire population in the way they could a handful of editorial boards, and so these aggregators are a greater facilitating influence on the opinions of voters than the parties are.
Trump's messaging has been well-targeted at viewpoints that people will talk about. And it's been delivered in a way that people will resonate with. So:
- His message has surfaced much more frequently, and more broadly, across these consumer-shaped aggregator networks.
- It's surfacing with a huge portion of the folks most likely to vote.
Pair that with the effects of group psychology and you get an idea of how folks who liked him for being ridiculous last summer now ideologically support him today.
The social media landscape is significantly different than in 2012.
http://www.ibtimes.com/facebook-gets-older-demographic-repor...
From Jan 2011 to Jan 2014, Facebook saw big increases in users aged 25-55 and massive increases in users aged 55+.
- Who votes the most?
- Where have they increasingly been turning as their primary consumption point for media?
Thompson's idea is that aggregator services have replaced distributor services as the channel for media to get to consumers, and that these aggregator services present new consumer-targeting opportunities for media, and new media-consuming opportunities for consumers.
When consumers define part of their consumption channel by the consumption preferences of other consumers, we start to see constructive interference in the "neutral" flow of media to any one individual consumer. It's that "echo chamber" effect folks like talking about.
Thompson says in the article, "[it's not] that Donald Trump or anyone else is an aggregator." Rather, the nature of the aggregator as a much more malleable media delivery system presents a new effect in that political landscape: any particular piece of media might end up in one of these broad-reaching, customized consumption webs and produce a large effect on those consumers.
Before, the distribution services were shaped by a relative handful of editors. Today, the aggregator services are shaped by the entire population.
The parties can't influence the entire population in the way they could a handful of editorial boards, and so these aggregators are a greater facilitating influence on the opinions of voters than the parties are.
Trump's messaging has been well-targeted at viewpoints that people will talk about. And it's been delivered in a way that people will resonate with. So:
- His message has surfaced much more frequently, and more broadly, across these consumer-shaped aggregator networks.
- It's surfacing with a huge portion of the folks most likely to vote.
Pair that with the effects of group psychology and you get an idea of how folks who liked him for being ridiculous last summer now ideologically support him today.